Judge Orders Sex-change for Boy

The Truth Fairy blog has a horror story about a dad who lost custody of his teenaged boy because he was reluctant to go along with bizarre sex-change treatments. The judge was biased, but so is the whole system.

“The problem is, when it’s a court-wide training, even if you file a motion to recuse that particular judge, you have no guarantee that you’ll be able to get in front of any judge that will give you impartial justice,” Broyles said.

Judge Hiramoto referred twice in the transcript to the things she had learned in “judicial college” and “family law classes for judges.” One thing she learned, it seems, was to refer to all adolescents whose gender identity is at issue as “they/them”—whether or not the gender identity was in dispute. Another thing Hiramoto learned, according to the transcript, was that gender, like sexual orientation, is immutable. Several times she pressed Ted, in several ways, on whether he could accept Drew if it turned out that Drew was “truly transgender.”

The judges, psychologists, and child advocates are demented beyond repair.

I have moved on. Probably no one sees this anymore.

Judicial reformer to be sentenced

I don't know anything about this, but a fellow angry parent sends:

On Tuesday, August 16, 2016 Commission on Judicial Performance reform activist Joe Sweeney will be handcuffed and taken into custody from the courtroom, and on the order of Contra Costa County Judge Bruce Mills.

The place is Department 29 of Contra Costa County Superior Court at 725 Court Street, Martinez CA 94553. The time is 8:30 a.m. This is the Wakefield Taylor Courthouse.

Sweeney will be jailed for publishing a blog documenting institutionalized corruption in the Contra Costa County Family Court system.

This event is to encourage the public to attend the hearing and witness the arrest. The ultimate goal is that the witnesses will later testify at the final CJP prosecution of Judge Bruce Mills.

Judge Mills has been disciplined by the CJP FIVE times, more than any other judge in the state who has not been removed from the bench. It is a virtual certainty that Mills will finally be stripped of his black robe for his misconduct in the Sweeney contempt case.

The circumstances suggest that Sweeney also is being punished for his advocacy to expose judicial corruption and reform the CJP. Even Joe's court-appointed criminal attorney, a veteran criminal and family law lawyer, says he has never seen anything like this.

On Tuesday, August 16, Judge Bruce Mills intends to order that Joe be jailed for 25 days in connection with a trumped up contempt of court proceeding.

Judge Mills is one of the most corrupt judges in California, and, again, has been prosecuted and disciplined by the CJP FIVE times. No other judge in the state has been disciplined as many times and remained on the bench.
Mills has connections at, and has been protected by the CJP for over 10 years. Judge Mills is in effect acting as the hatchet man for the Judicial Branch, and returning a favor to the CJP.

This event is to support, and witness the courtroom arrest of CJP reform advocate Joe Sweeney. We are confident that this extra-judicial act by Judge Bruce Mills will result in the final CJP prosecution and removal of Mills by the CJP.

If you cannot attend, but still want to help, in the next 24 hours we will be posting other ways to participate. This situation is evolving rapidly and we are trying to keep up.

She also sends links to Change.org and Facebook.

Judicial commission holds hearing

A fellow angry parent sends this:

CJE [Center for Judicial Excellence] is working in coalition to audit and reform the California Commission on Judicial Performance (CJP), a powerful state agency that is responsible for disciplining our state’s nearly 2,000 judges.

For 20 years, the Commission admits that less than 2% of all complaints filed by average California litigants or their family and friends have resulted in the discipline of our state’s judges. This is an appalling and concerning statistic that proves the need for reforms of our judicial oversight agency, which was created in 1961 in large part to “protect the public.” We are committed to bringing sunshine into a secretive agency that operates in the dark, and without any meaningful checks or balances.

We are pleased to announce that we expect our audit request to be heard at the JLAC Hearing on August 10, 2016 in Sacramento (the Joint Legislative Audit Committee).

I am surprised that 2% of complaints result in discipline to a judge. That is much higher than I would have expected.

If I were running the commission, I would probably decide that most of the judges need to be displined.

Anyway, I post this in case anywants to attend this hearing, or to send a supporting message.

Parents cannot settle support issues

According to USA law, a women has the unilateral right to opt out of parenthood by having an abortion at any time. A man has no such right, and can be forced into fatherhood. Furthermore, he can be forced into continuing involvement with the child, even if both parents agree to a financial settlement.

And when both parents agree to a settlement, both the judge and the press will blame the man.

The NY Post reports:

An Ivy League Lothario’s bid to get out of child support by giving his baby mama a one-time $150,000 payment was spanked by a Manhattan judge Thursday.

The 2013 Dartmouth grad offered the woman the pile of cash to “irrevocably terminate [his] parental rights” — because he was mad she refused to get an abortion and didn’t want to support the kid until he was 18.

The man, identified in court papers only as Avery G., 24, actually convinced the woman to take the lottery-style reduced-sum payout — which would be a lot of money up front but less than she would get from taking a monthly support check. ...

Avery G. will pay $832 a month for support, ...

Goldstein calls Avery’s bid both “unusual” and “extraordinary” and says there is no similar precedent for voluntarily signing away parental rights.

The mom, an $85,000-a-year marketing director, has sole legal and physical custody of the baby.

This anti-man, but it is also anti-woman, as the mom did not get the deal she wanted either.

I do not know how parents will ever get their rights back. Here both parents went to court with a settlement agreement, and the judge rejected the deal and insisted on supervising the child's upbringing for the next 18 years. And the newspaper agrees with the judge.

I don't know why the judge says that voluntarily signing away parental rights is so unusual. I have seen it in the local family court lots of times. Sometimes it happens just because a parent misses a couple of court appearances.

The same newspaper says Bernie Sanders is a communist.

In another attack on parental rights, the NY Times reports:

But anti-abortion groups argue that such cases should be decided according to the best interests of the embryos, the same legal standard used in child-custody disputes. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed last month in the Missouri dispute, they say an embryo’s most fundamental interest is to be born: “No other right is of any avail if a human being is not around to invoke it.”

The BIOTCh is called a legal standard, but it is not. Saying "best interests of the embryos" sounds like satire.

What would they do, appoint a court psychologist to evalate the embryo? That is not much more ridiculous than the family court does already.

Gay rights v Best interest

The NY Times reports:

Under fire from critics including gay rights activists and the state’s Republican governor, a judge in Utah on Friday reversed, at least temporarily, his order that a foster child be taken away from a lesbian couple because it was “not in the best interest of children to be raised by same-sex couples.”

While the child may remain with the couple for the moment, Judge Scott N. Johansen signaled that the matter might not be settled. He continued to question the placement of children with same-sex parents, a matter that will be taken up at a Dec. 4 hearing on what is in the best interests of this child, a 9-month-old girl. ...

Gay rights activists say the case at the heart of the Supreme Court’s marriage decision, Obergefell v. Hodges, should have put such questions to rest, arguing that the right to marry plainly confers the same rights as other married couples have.

Keep in mind that these are not biological parents, or even adoptive parents. They are just foster parents, and they have no right to some baby in the foster care system. They might be many other better-suited foster parents.

Fathers have a right to marry. If a dad can lose his own kid at the judge's discretion about the BIOTCh, then surely a lesbian parent can.

“It’s not fair and it’s not right,” Ms. Hoagland told a television station, KUTV. “And it just hurts me really badly, because I haven’t done anything wrong.”

Join the club. Lots of parents have lost their genuine kids without any finding of any wrongdoing.

A gay site says:

While the judge removed the scientifically inaccurate claim that "it is not in the best interest of children to be raised by same-sex couples," his new order still notes the court's "concern that research has shown that children are more emotionally and mentally stable when raised by a mother and father in the same home."

Yes, research does show that same-sex couples are not good for kids. But whether they are or not, the judge can just remove those remarks from his written opinion, and just say that he thinks that some other couple would be better for this baby. He could just look at the lesbians, and decide that they are too fat to be good parents. Or he can apply any other prejudice he wants, as long as he does not put something in writing that violates non-discrimination laws or supreme court rulings.

The Human Rights Campaign has called for an investigation into Judge Johansen's conduct, ... "It is unconscionable that any judge would let bias interfere with determining the true best interest of a child and we strongly encourage the commission to take appropriate action to hold this Judge accountable and to affirm that personal bias has no place in judicial decisions in Utah."

I thought that the LGBTQIA crowd would realize that the BIOTCh is there enemy, because straight judges will almost never consider them to be in the best interest. Bias always interferes in a best interest determination.

Judge uses shrinks as political punishment

Dinesh D'Souza is a right-wing Christian Indian-American author who is probably best known for making a couple of anti-Obama movies. He is also a convicted felon for making a couple of political campaign donations in the names of others in order to bypass legal limits.

People love him or hate him, based on his political and religious views.

At a hearing Monday in Manhattan in which he ruled filmmaker Dinesh D’Souza must continue community service for four more years, U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman said he considers D’Souza’s violation of federal campaign-finance laws to be evidence of a psychological problem and ordered further counseling.

D’Souza’s defense counsel Benjamin Brafman provided evidence to the court that the psychiatrist D’Souza was ordered to see found no indication of depression or reason for medication. In addition, the psychologist D’Souza subsequently consulted provided a written statement concluding there was no need to continue the consultation, because D’Souza was psychologically normal and well adjusted.

But Judge Berman disagreed, effectively overruling the judgment of the two licensed psychological counselors the U.S. probation department had approved as part of D’Souza’s criminal sentence.

“I only insisted on psychological counseling as part of Mr. D’Souza’s sentence because I wanted to be helpful,” the judge explained. “I am requiring Mr. D’Souza to see a new psychological counselor and to continue the weekly psychological consultation not as part of his punishment or to be retributive.

The judge says it is not punishment, but this was a very petty crime and not one of corruption or a mental disorder.

This is the American equivalent of a Communist reeducation camp. The judge does not agree with D'Souza's worldview, so he orders psychotherapy to change his values.

“I’m not singling out Mr. D’Souza to pick on him,” Berman said at the hearing Monday. “A requirement for psychological counseling often comes up in my hearings in cases where I find it hard to understand why someone did what they did.”

WND reported that at the Sept. 23, 2014, sentencing hearing, Berman said he could not understand how someone of D’Souza’s intelligence, with credentials that include college president, could do something so stupid as to violate federal campaign contribution laws. D’Souza was at the pinnacle of his career, writing bestselling non-fiction books and producing popular feature films.

As WND reported, after pleading guilty to campaign-finance violations, D’Souza was sentenced in September to eight months in a work-release center, five years of probation, a $30,000 fine and community service. He pleaded guilty in May 2014 to arranging “straw donors” to contribute $10,000 to the failed 2012 U.S. Senate campaign of Wendy Long, a college friend. ...

Berman explained at the hearing Monday that his social-work training combined with his psychology major has made him sensitive to psychological issues in the criminal cases he hears.

“You have to understand, I have a background in social work with a psychology major,” Berman explained. “I’m sensitive to mental health issues in the criminal cases I hear, and I do not want to end psychological counseling at this time in Mr. D’Souza’s case.”

So the judge was a psych major in college and that entitles him to psychoanalyze the defendant?

Liberals have a very hard time understanding conservatives. Non-Christians have a very hard time understanding Christians. And authoritarian judges have a hard time understand how someone would believe that he has a free speech right to support the political candidate of his choice. (There was no bribery accusation; the donation was just a gift.)

Yes, D'Souza has beliefs. That should be obvious to anyone who has listened to him for 10 minutes. And he is not going to drop those beliefs just because some bigoted judge orders him on the couch to talk to some lame shrink.

“What I’m reading in the psychological case notes is compatible with my own impressions,” Berman continued. “The psychological case notes indicate that while Mr. D’Souza is highly intelligent, he has remarkably little insight into his own motivations, that he is not introspective or insightful, but that he tends to see his own actions in an overly positive manner.

“I consider the original crime in this case is an insight issue,” Berman continued. “That Mr. D’Souza committed this crime involves a colossal failure of insight and introspection. The case notes also say Mr. D’Souza has weaknesses in controlling his own impulses and that he is prone to anger in reaction to criticism.”

The judge noted the psychologists “chart indicates Mr. D’Souza tends to deny problems, that he lacks insight into his own behavior, that he is arrogant and intolerant of the feelings of others, while projecting an overly positive image of himself.”

This is just asinine psychobabble. When shrinks disagree with your actions or opinions, they often say you lack insight or introspection.

D'Souza has publicly debated political issues, and even religious issues. Of course he reacts to criticism in those debates. I think I watched a recording of one of those debates, and he seemed normal to me. Disagreeing with a debate opponent is not a mental illness. If he did have a disorder about reacting to criticism, he probably could not do such a debate.

Federal judges have a lifetime appointment, unfortunately. This one is unfit for the bench.

I am beginning to think that we need an exorcism:

Can — or should — an exorcism be done for the United States, as was done in Mexico this past May?

Cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez, the archbishop emeritus of Guadalajara, performed the rite, together with priests from across Mexico, at the Cathedral of San Luis Potosí in a closed-door ceremony. The purpose: to drive away the evil responsible for skyrocketing violence, abortion and drugs in that predominantly-Catholic nation.

Such “exorcisms … have helped bring awareness that there is such a thing as sin influenced by Satan,” said Msgr. John Esseff, a priest for 62 years in the Diocese of Scranton, Pa., and an exorcist for more than 35 years.

“The devil has much to do with [influencing people in] breaking the law of God,” he said. ...

According to Father Thomas, demonic activity has been increasing in the United States because people are choosing to be dissuaded away from God and opening portals such as New Age and witchcraft that are gateways to the demonic. “When faith becomes thin and Satan and agents of Satan move in, there are going to be effects,” he said.

“It was Pope Benedict XVI who said that as faith diminishes, superstition increases.”

Father Mike Driscoll, chaplain of St. Elizabeth’s Medical Center in Ottawa, Ill., and author of the new book Demons, Deliverance, and Discernment, explained that, in addition to possession, demons can infest a place or thing.

We are infested with demons, and I don't think that the Catholics are up to the challenge.

After exorcising this judge, I would exorcise Lena Dunham. I have criticized her for her sick book, picture, article mocking her Jewish boyfriend, and a few other things. Now her problem is that she claimed to be postponing marriage until gays can marry, and now she has no excuse:

But my friend Audrey put it best when she raised her hand and told our professor, “I object to the marriage-industrial complex. But I want that dress. So now what?”

“I’m never getting married,” I told my friend Isabel while we floated in the Dead Sea. We were twenty-two and smeared with mud. “It’s a tool to oppress women and eliminate their freedom,” I added. “Plus, who wants to make out in front of their parents?”

She was newly in love, high on connection. “You’ll take that back the minute you meet someone you like,” she said.

Three years ago, when I was twenty-five, I met a bespectacled musician named Jack. He had a passion for John Hughes movies and driving on the Jersey Turnpike. His belief in, and insistence on, true equality for L.G.B.T.Q. citizens was no small reason why I fell in love with him, and, early in our relationship, I watched him struggle with the decision of whether or not to perform at a straight couple’s wedding. He discussed the matter at length with queer friends, concerned that it might be a form of betrayal (ultimately, he was given their blessing, though he seemed fairly tortured about it anyhow). The struggle was real and raw for Jack, and so it somehow became understood, between us, that we wouldn’t even consider marrying until every American had the same right. And I said it proudly whenever I had the chance, with the grandiosity and intimations of sacrifice you hear from certain lesser vegans.

Jack would be nuts to marry this head case. Not until Satan is driven out, anyway.

Update: A reader points out:

Surprise, surprise. The judge in the D'Souza case used to be a Family Court Judge.

It all makes sense now. That possibility did not occur to me, as I did not think that family court judges ever get promoted to being federal judges.

Judge gives opinion about girl consenting to rape

There is a sickening trend towards judges and others giving opinions about whether an underage girl consented to rape. The whole point of statutory rape laws is that a girl cannot consent if she is below the age of consent.

Eugene Volokh reports:

Unsurprisingly, New Hampshire makes it a felony for adults to have sex with under-16-year-olds. And New Hampshire also makes it a more serious felony for adults to have sex with anyone when, among other things,

at the time of the sexual assault, the victim indicates by speech or conduct that there is not freely given consent to performance of the sexual act.

But earlier this month, in State v. Lisasuain, the New Hampshire Supreme Court interpreted this “aggravated sexual assault” provision as potentially covering even conduct where the victim remains totally passive.

*After reviewing the record ... the evidence was sufficient ... that she did not consent to the sexual assaults by the defendant."

The only evidence needed for that conclusion is that she was under 16, the age of consent.

Feminists are always complaining about blaming the victim, so I would think that they would complain about any discussion of consent by an underage girl. Instead they complain about this study:

A program that taught college women ways to prevent sexual assault cut in half the chances they would be raped over the next year, a Canadian study found. It was the first large, scientific test of resistance training, and the strong results should spur more universities to offer it, experts say.

Five percent of freshman women who went through the four-session program said they had been raped during the following year, compared to 10 percent of others who were just given brochures on assault prevention. Attempted rapes also were lower - about 3 percent in the training group versus more than 9 percent of the others.

The results are "startling," said a prominent researcher on sex assault ...

Startling? It used to be that all girl were taught prudent measures for avoid sexual assaults. Now this teaching is resisted by feminists who say that girls have a right to be sexually provocative and to pursue risky behavior.

But many of those same feminists would like to abolish the age of consent laws, and allow girls of any age to be sexually active and get abortions without parental permission.

And they deny that one rape can be any worse than any other rape. To them, stranger rape is the same as spousal rape, and raping a slut is the same as raping a virgin. I don't think that a jury can even be told whether or not the victim was a virgin. Weird.

Following up on a previous story, AP reports:

California’s attorney general is asking a judge to toss out a proposed ballot initiative that advocates killing anyone who engages in gay sex. ...

Even conservative groups in California have repudiated the proposed ballot measure.

It says "even conservative groups"?! Did someone really think that conservative groups might suppoert this? Read the initiative, as it is obviously a joke.

This is like saying: "Even conservative groups have repudiated a white gunman killing black church goers in Charleston.

It has some joke reponses, such as The Intolerant Jackass Act, but the California attorney general is supporting that.

British surrogacy gone bad

England is grappling with giving gay men rights to babies:

Forcing a surrogate mum to part with her child is an outrage.

Earlier this month, the English High Court forced a mother to hand her 15-month-old toddler, Baby M, over to the man who had commissioned the baby by surrogacy. In response to this ruling, there was muted criticism and little discussion of any need to change the law in favour of mothers. Indeed, if it hadn’t been for the fact that the mother was forced to hand her child over to a man and his gay partner, it seems unlikely that the case would have been deemed newsworthy at all – the Daily Mail’s headline, ‘Judge takes toddler from “homophobic” mum to live with gay dad and his lover’, is a case in point. Yet the fact that our courts can force any mother to hand her baby over to any commissioning father should be the real point of concern. Something is seriously wrong with the moral compass of our policymakers.

Baby M was conceived artificially with the father’s sperm after the mother and commissioning father, H, entered into a surrogacy agreement. But by the time of Baby M’s birth, it was clear that the mother wanted the child to be hers. She made sure H was not at the hospital when the baby was born, she registered the birth without putting H on the birth certificate, and she chose the baby’s name.

Within a fortnight of the baby’s birth, H and his partner went to court. Fifteen months later they obtained a court order that said the toddler must live with them, while the mother’s contact with the child would be limited to visits supervised by an official. By court order, then, this toddler will not be allowed to live, or stay overnight, with her mother. To all intents and purposes, the normal mother-daughter relationship is at an end. H and his partner are now responsible for bringing up Baby M for the remainder of her childhood.

Some of those in the press directed their ire at the judge personally, after noting that she was the first judge to insist on being addressed as ‘Ms’ rather than ‘Mrs’, and that she did not have children of her own. These criticisms are misplaced. The judge reached her conclusion by applying the law, and it’s a law that required the judge to disregard the mother’s interests. Yes, you read that sentence correctly: if a surrogate mother changes her mind and reneges on an agreement to give her baby to the commissioning parents, then all parties may come to court with an equal right to have the baby. The Court of Appeal accepted in 2007 that ‘both sides start from the same position’. The fact that the mother has carried the baby for nine months and given birth to it gives her no right to resist a residence application from the commissioning father. The fact that the biological parents have never been in a relationship is also to be disregarded. The law on surrogacy now treats the birth mother as little more than a vessel – and that is inhumane.

In a surrogacy agreement the commissioning father will surely have made a considerable emotional investment and one can understand his disappointment if the woman who agreed to hand over her baby changes her mind, or, indeed, if she decides to abort the baby (as can happen). But the circumstances of the mother and father in a surrogacy agreement are not comparable, at least not in the eyes of anyone who values the right of a woman to have bodily autonomy and to determine the future of her offspring. Put simply, the mother should always have the right to change her mind. As Frank Furedi has pointed out, no woman who agrees to be a surrogate can be sure how she will feel about the child-to-be as it grows in her womb. These rights should also apply to women who never intended to hand over the baby (which is what the judge found to be the case with regard to Baby M). ...

While policymakers have flattened the moral landscape, judges have been given a free hand to intervene in disputed surrogacy agreements and to make judgements under the rubric of doing what is in the child’s best interests. Clearly, if the mother is a violent heroin addict, for example, then there would be a case for intervening and acting in the child’s best interests. But the Baby M case did not raise such issues and the judge noted that, under her mother’s care, the child ‘has come to no serious harm’.

This is messed up. I cannot agree with the judge throwing out contracts and deciding based on her own opinion of a baby being reared by gay men. Nor can I agree with saying that a woman can just change her mind about such an important matter whenever she pleases, after taking many 1000s of dollars.

It appears that the system is being rigged to give judges more power, and to promote various gay or feminist goals.

How family court judges can enforce contracts

I have mentioned high-profile legal disputes over frozen zygotes and circumcision, and both involve a family court judge being asked to enforce or negate a previous agreement on medical matters.

Here is a case from England:

A devout mother made a legally binding promise, backed up with the threat of criminal sanctions, never to talk to her son about her religion, take him to church or even say grace at meals in a doomed attempt to stop him being taken into care, amid claims that she was “indoctrinating” him, a judge has disclosed.

The seven-year-old boy, who cannot be named, has been placed with foster carers because of fears that his mother, a Jehovah’s Witness, was causing him emotional harm by “immersing” him in her beliefs.

The child, who teachers described as “troubled, angry and confused”, rejected his own father because he said he “could not be with people who didn’t believe in Jehovah”.

In the USA, I don't think a mom could be forced to keep quiet about her religion, but the dad could certainly have gotten custody for reason of alienation. (Putting the kid in foster case because the judge disapproves of a religious opinion is extreme.)

A reader asks what authority judges have to order performance under a contract? In regular civil court, judges rarely order specific performance to obey a contract. Instead, they just order someone to pay liquidated damages.

He also asks why any parents should be obligated to these contracts anyway. In the above cases, a woman changed her mind about having a baby, and another woman joined an anti-circumcision cult. Women change their minds all the time, on matters from hair color to walking out of a marriage. If women had written the Constitution, there would be a clause in there about an inalienable right to change her mind.

And judges force changes all the time. A judge with throw out a marriage or a parenting plan because of the supposed best interest of the child.

In family court, judges have almost unlimited discretion to award child custody based on his own personal prejudices about the BIOTCh. That is the mechanism that lets judges force whatever they please.

If the judge really wants the boy to get a circumcision, all he has to do is to grant temporary sole legal and physical child custody to the parent who wants the circumcision. Then that parents gets it done, and there can be no more dispute about it.

Nick Loeb has just figured out that's the trick to getting his frozen zygotes. He has now changed his legal complaint to a dispute over custody of the zygotes, as if they legal children. Now he just has to convince a judge that being thawed is in the best interest of a frozen zygote.

That may sound crazy, but not much crazier than what is done already. Los Angelos family court often requires appointment of an attorney to represent the interest of a developing embryo, because of the possibility that the embryo might have a different interest from the birth mom. This is not done in abortion cases, because the mom has a constitutional right to kill the embryo. But otherwise, there are sometimes family court cases involving embryos.

I have not heard that the embryo lawyer persuaded a judge against the interests of the adult parties, but I guess it is possible.

The odds are still stacked against Loeb, because winning would complicate matters for the IVF clinics. As it is, they have to get assurances that the legalities are in order for the procedures to be done. If a family court judge and change custody of a zygote, then the clinics would need additional assurance that the paperwork properly reflects the legal custody.

My personal opinion is that Rule of Law should apply to disputes like this. That is, the issues should not be up to the discretion of judges or psychologists. On a subject like circumcision, where there are valid arguments for and against, the law can simple require 1-parent or 2-parent approval. I would even be okay with the dad having the final say about male circumcision and the mom having the final say about female circumcision, but I think most forms of female circumcision are illegal in the USA. There is no need to have one set of rules for regular parents, and another set for parents under the jurisdiction of the family court. And no need for anyone to be bound to a decision made years previously.

The IVF industry is based on the concept of informed consent of competent adults. The clinics do not who controls the zygotes. They just want to paperwork to properly reflect the agreements and legal rights, so they do not get sued. Perhaps Loeb should have checked the box that says that either parent can have the zygote if the other does not want it. If the zygotes were really property like furniture, then Loeb and Vergara could each get one of the zygotes.

A dirty little secret of the IVF industry is that it has about a million human zygotes sitting in its freezers. Either they were extra, or saved for later use and not used, or the parents do not know what to do with them. Occasionally they get donated to infertile couples or to stem cell research, but that is awkward and requires legal papers. If you think of these as lives that have already been created, as Loeb says, then it is a little
spooky to think of all those million zygotes.

BTW, I am using the term "zygote" because I believe that is the correct term. A zygote become an embryo only have the cells start differentiating, and that is unlikely to have happened. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Florida parents fight over circumcision

Some people argue that joint child custody can never work, unless both parents agree on everything, or some legal authority micromanages their lives. I believe this is false, but I welcome difficult examples.

One of the biggest examples in the news is the decision to circumcise a boy. This is one of those issues that some people attach great importance to. Apparently there are women who feel very strongly about it, altho I don't know why any woman would care, just as I don't know why men would care about female circumcision.

Slate summarizes:

When Hironimus [mom] refused to allow the procedure to go forward, Nebus [dad] took her to court to enforce the contract she had signed. A state court sided with Nebus, noting that their parenting plan “clearly and unambiguously provides” that Chase would be circumcised. An appeals court unanimously affirmed the ruling, and a judge ordered Hironimus to turn Chase over to Nebus so he could schedule the procedure. Hironimus instead disappeared with her son. The judge then issued a warrant for her arrest for interfering with child custody. For weeks Hironimus escaped arrest by hiding with Chase in a domestic violence shelter. (Hironimus has not claimed that she was abused.) While hiding out, Hironimus filed a federal lawsuit against Nebus, asserting that, by having Chase circumcised, Nebus would violate his son’s constitutional rights. Eventually, the police discovered Hironimus’ whereabouts, took her into custody, and turned Chase over to Nebus.

A tenacious community of intactivists seized upon Hironimus’ plight as both a crusade and a publicity stunt.
From her jail cell, Hironimus filed an emergency motion in federal court to prevent Nebus from having Chase circumcised. When a federal judge essentially laughed Hironimus out of court, she withdrew her federal suit. A state judge ruled that Hironimus will remain in jail until she signs the consent form for Chase to be circumcised. On Friday a weeping Hironimus signed the form. She still faces criminal charges for absconding with Chase in violation of her custody agreement.

I do not even think that this should have anything to do with child custody. State law requires parental consent for a child medical operation. Some laws require one-parent consent. Some require two-parent consent. I have no idea about circumcision, but even if two-parent consent is required, the dad could argue that the mom has already given it.

There are some troubling aspects to this story, such as:

For a brief time early Friday, it appeared Hironimus had no intention of approving the circumcision, even if the refusal meant being kept behind bars indefinitely.

That is not consent. That is the opposite of consent. No one should be satisfied with such a signature. I would hope that the surgeon would refuse it, altho he might accept a judge's order that the earlier consent applies.

Sometimes family court apologists deny that judges micro-manage anyone, because usually everyone consents to the orders. They have a very funny idea of consent. Cases settle based on what is likely to be ordered, not what the parties want.

Also, there is no value to a shrink opinion:

In a telephone interview with Local10.com, attorney Thomas Hunker said he recently began representing Hironimus after her previous lawyer, Taryn Sinatra, withdrew.

Hunker said he filed a motion to have a court-appointed guardian ad litem for the boy and is seeking to have a mental health professional evaluate the boy's "emotional state" to determine if circumcision is "something that would be advisable." He said the goal is to make sure the child "has an independent voice" and isn't caught up in his parents' squabble.

"It's the boy who's really going to have to live the rest of his life with the decision," Hunker said.

There are pros and cons to circumcision, but having a psychologist talk to a 4-year-old is just family court silliness. There can be no objective evaluation of BIOTCh in a case like this. I think that the American Academy of Pediatrics has gone back and forth on this issue a couple of times.

A reader writes:

Since marriage contracts are not enforceable, but may be unilaterally broken by one party for any reason or no reason, it's unclear why an "agreed parenting plan" between unmarried partners is binding and enforceable against one party who changes her mind for whatever reason.

That is a good point, and it seems stupid that our law requires a court-approved parenting plan from unmarried parents, but not married parents.

All I can say is that a set of legal and cultural shifts have redefined marriage. When two people get married, they are not agreeing to a permanent relationship, or any binding obligations. They are agreeing to let a family court judge micro-manage their lives if one party requests it. Gay marriage is just a part of this shift.

I don't know why anyone agreed to this shift. It is destroying our society. I have documented the evils on this blog.

A legal site says:

What if I My Spouse and I Disagree on Consent?

This is a highly contentious area of the law, and your options vary from state to state. Most states only require the consent of a single parent to perform a circumcision. HOWEVER, although the law is not very established on this subject, a parent or guardian who feels that circumcision will not be in the best interests of the child may file an injunction to prevent the operation.

For the most part, very very few doctors will perform a circumcision if one parent objects to the procedure, usually out of fear of a lawsuit. You should make your objection very clear to all doctors involved, to prevent any misunderstandings (an attorney can also provide you with a "non-circumcision notification form" that will put the hospital on notice).

So the dad probably could have legally had the circumcision done on his own time, if the surgeon agreed to do it. So I doubt that the surgeon would be any more likely to do it, knowing that the mom only signed the form to get out of jail.

Here is a obgyn Newborn Circumcision Consent Form (Msft doc), and there is only one signature line. I am guessing that physicians normally accept the instructions of one parent.

Using social media against anti-freedom lobbyists

A Santa Cruz Sentinel editorial complains:

The debate over Senate Bill 277, which would make vaccinations compulsory for schoolchildren, has taken an ugly turn. Although we understand the rights of opponents to express themselves, their tactics have gone way too far.

A group of opponents have taken to social media — and not merely to state their views. Instead, they’ve been sharing not only personal information about the bill’s lobbyists, but they’ve also decided to publish photos online of their whereabouts.

There is a big difference between activism and harassment.

The California Medical Association, a supporter of compulsory vaccination, has complained about a video by California Chiropractic Association President Brian Stenzler in which he urges an SB 277 foe to follow them “all day long — follow them to a T,” according to an account in the Sacramento Bee. ...

Apparently, however, some opponents aren’t so restrained. Some of the activists are taking to the Internet and social media to track the activities of supporters. Doing so crosses the line.

We acknowledge that we support the idea of compulsory vaccination. To us, the science is clear, that the vaccination of children is necessary to avoid the spread of diseases like pertussis, measles and more.

Despite that stand, we understand that some people are going to push back, and that the idea of compulsory vaccination is a tough pill to swallow for some advocates of free choice.

This complaint seems a little premature, as it appears that no one has been harassed.

Here is the offending video. Maybe I am misinterpreting it, but I don't see any advocacy of harassment. He mentions the name of a lobbying on his side, to distinguish her from two other lobbyists on the other side. He says to follow them, but in the sense of "follow the money". Maybe he just wanted to identify the financial interests wanting to force vaccines.

Here is Democrat state senator Pan assuring the public that they will have a choice, and then introducing a law to eliminate that choice.

I wonder why there are not more social media attacks on public officials. Obviously some parents get very upset at laws that force medical injections of marginal value. Parents also get upset at public officials who try to take their kids away, especially when they act out of corruption, maliciousness, or incompetence. I do not favor any harassment, but I certainly think that public officials should be exposed when they are acting against the public interest.

California treats all accused parents as guilty

I just found http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/cab1417.pdf on the official California court site. It is obviously part of some informative booklet for kids who are subjected to being put in foster care.



Note the presumption that the parents are guilty. A juvenile dependency case is defined by the county CPS agency making an accusation of parental abuse or neglect, and it is up to the judge or the appeals court to accept or dismiss the accusation.

This shows that county agents will tell a kid that his parents are guilty of abuse when there is only an unproved accusation.

This is laughable:



No, this is like telling a criminal defendant that the police are there to keep you safe. Yes, we have police to make a safer society, but once you are charged with a crime, the police work for the prosecution, and their goal is to help put you in jail.

It is the judge’s job to listen to what everyone says in court. The judge knows what the law is and decides what needs to happen to keep kids safe. If the judge asks you a question, it is very important for you to tell the truth. The judge needs to know the truth to make the best decision for you.

This is pretty crazy advice. According to a recent federal case, juvenile dependency court judges in some areas spend less than 5 minutes per case, and often less than 60 seconds. No such judge will ever make the best decision for a child, and the child could be sentencing himself to a disastrous foster home by cooperating.

I could not find the rest of this booklet, or instructions on using it, but it illustrates the guilty-until-proven-innocent mentality of govt agents that I often complain about. Actually it is worse than that, because there is no mention of any possibility of being proven innocent. To CPS, an accusation is just the same as a guilty verdict.

I often mention people who are presumed guilty, and here is a list of egregious 2014 cases.

Men who want better than shared parenting

One of the Men Going Their Own Way writes:

The same idea can be applied to the issues of relationships simply by asking, "Is there a way to do this with less government rather than more? And if so, is it simpler?" If the answer to those questions are yes then it is almost assuredly the better solution.

For example, much of the Men's Rights Movement (MRM) is focused on the plight of divorced fathers and the shrieks for shared-parenting are deafening. Shared-parenting though, is pretty much asking for the government courts to take 100% custody of the child and then dole out baby-sitting duties to the parents on this day and that day. If one parent loses a job and needs to move across the country to find employment, he will have to beg the court for permission to relinquish his duties to shared-parenting. Such a person has thus surrendered their right to move freely about the country. What if the two parents decide to follow vastly different religions? Well, the court will decide whether the child is to be Jewish or Muslim, not the parents. Furthermore, when shared-parenting becomes the norm, a woman's only way to get on the current alimony/child-support gravy train will be to claim abuse as the reason for her getting sole custody, and the amount of men falsely accused of abuse will rise.

He supports the MGTOW Manifesto.

Here is the NPO pdf report card on shared parenting laws in the 50 states (also pdf summary and USA Today article). While some states encourage it, it is always under the authority of a judge to micro-manage the parents lives, and to adjust parenting time according to the BIOTCh.

Judge ships kid to out-of-state boarding school

Law prof. E. Volokh writes:

Many parents are reluctant to send their children to boarding schools, because they think that spending more time with their children is good for the children (as well as good for the parent). But what if the parents have split up, and one wants to send the child to boarding school and the other doesn’t? That’s the subject of an interesting decision from the Arizona Court of Appeals last week, in Baker v. Meyer:

The dad persuaded a family court judge to break the shared parenting agreement and send the kid to an out-of-state boarding school. The appeals court reversed, saying that the mom's central concerns were ignored.

There are lawyers who love to gloat about cases like this, because they say that shared parenting can never work unless it is supervised by a judge.

The unfortunate fact is that it is impossible to agree to a binding parenting plan because one side can always break it later if he convinces a meddlesome judge. And that it exactly what happened here, until the appeals court stopped it.

I wish I could say that the appellate decision upheld parental rights, but the judge can just make the same decision anyway, and explain the reasoning a little differently.

One commenter argues that the dad's choice of school is a "better school", and adds:

I have complete respect for parental rights; ...

And I would have a lot more respect for all parties if they would just agree on something and get it out of the court system. They are wasting their time and money.

That said, you are right about one thing; the world would be a better place if I was the dictator. ...

"You side with the judge because of your own opinion about the better school."

I side with no one. My opinion in these matters is always the same- people need to settle their issues. 99.99% of the time, it isn't worth the time and money. It is a waste of the family's resources to bring this before the court, and the only people to benefit are the attorneys. More often than not, it is a continuation of a dysfunctional dynamic- often, the same one that made the divorce. Get over it. Nobody- not you, not the other person, and certainly not the child, wins in family court.

"You are like a medieval serf who cannot imagine life without a king."

I appreciate the sentiment, but I am closer to the King than the serf.

The family court is infested with worms like this guy. He has contempt for parents and likes dictating their lives. He claims to believe that people are better off outside family court, but he strenuously argues for the policies that bring them into court. That is, he wants one parent to be able to break an agreement by appealing to the prejudices of a judge.

If it is really true, as he says, that the child never benefits from these legal actions, then the logical conclusion is for the court to refuse to hear them. The court has no business holding a hearing on which school is better.

Thomas Paine wrote a book in 1776 called Common Sense that convinced the American colonists that they did not need a king. Is there anyone today who can convince Americans that we do not need judges and experts micro-managing our families? Can that lawyer quoted above be convinced?

Hillary Clinton is announcing her candidacy for President, and her most famous book is It Takes a Village. It advocated government control of child rearing, and an end to family autonomy. Barack Obama campaigned on The Life Of Julia, and incorrect portrayal of government dependence and male elimination. No self-respecting man would vote for either one of these creeps.

We had more common sense in 1776.

A judge can have religious biases

I often quote the NY Times here, because it is a great source of news. But it does have a Jewish leftoid bias. It recently had a big front page story alleging anti-semitism, making a big deal out of a trivial little college student vote. It started:

It seemed like routine business for the student council at the University of California, Los Angeles: confirming the nomination of Rachel Beyda, a second-year economics major who wants to be a lawyer someday, to the council’s Judicial Board.

Until it came time for questions.

“Given that you are a Jewish student and very active in the Jewish community,” Fabienne Roth, a member of the Undergraduate Students Association Council, began, looking at Ms. Beyda at the other end of the room, “how do you see yourself being able to maintain an unbiased view?”

It is just a question. It was prompted by the fact that she is very active in Jewish religious campus groups. If she is campaigning for office, she ought to be able to explain that she will be fair.

There is no big wave of anti-semitism, except from Moslems. What the article did not explain is that all the opposition to her was from Moslems.

The leftoid bias of the NY Times is to exaggerate anti-semitism allegations, but also to promote anti-Christian diversity with Moslem immigration, so it does not want to blame the Moslems for the anti-semitism. Others piled on.

We have 9 justices on our US Supreme Court, and they are all either Catholics or Jews. The Jews are all appointed by Democrats. Is this coincidence? Of course not. We do not allow open interrogation of religious beliefs in the US Senates, but these beliefs are a factor anyway.

A judge has enormous discretion to impose his or her beliefs and values on others. In big cases pending before the Supreme Court on Obamacare and same-sex marriage, all observers are in agreement on how the Jewish justices will vote.

While no one admits to religious discrimination, the reasons are obvious. If you know someone's religion, you have a clue to his foundational values. You also get clues from his personality type, his mental disorders, and his family. Generalizations about such matters have exceptions, of course. For example, Jews vote Democrat about 70-80% of the time, and have done so for decades. They are not all liberal Democrats, but it is a good working assumption.

Here is a 2013 example of a complaint about a religious question:

It’s got plenty of competition but this may just be the single most cringe-worthy, embarrassing interview on Fox News. At least in recent memory. Fox News anchor Lauren Green had religious scholar Reza Aslan on her FoxNews.com show Friday to talk about Zealot: The Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth, his book that has been stirring up some online controversy recently. And right off the bat, Green gets to what is important: “You’re a Muslim, so why did you write a book about the founder of Christianity?”

I have listened to 100s of book author interviews, and most of ask a question of the sort "Why did you write this book?" It is a softball question that allows most authors to promote their books. But Reza Aslan launched into a series of lies about his credentials.

Here is a left-wing blogger who is embarrassed to admit that she is a Christian.

My most controversial postings were where I questioned the religious biases of family court judges and psychologists. My preference, of course, is that these creeps should not have the discretion to apply their personal religious values to micro-manage the lives of law-abiding citizens.

NASCAR reverses itself

I blasted NASCAR for treating a man as guilty-until-proven-innocent, so I should credit them with reversing themselves after the man is proven innocent. AP reports:

Kurt Busch was cleared Wednesday to get back in his race car and attempt to rebuild a career that was halted two days before the Daytona 500 when NASCAR suspended him for allegedly assaulting his ex-girlfriend.

''It's been torture sitting out of the car,'' Busch said in a conference call. He called the allegations against him ''a complete fabrication.''

''I never did anything of the things I was accused of,'' he added. ''I never wavered in this whole process because of the confidence in the truth.'' ...

He said he will replace his longtime nickname ''The Outlaw'' with his signature above the door of his car.

Busch remains on indefinite probation. ...

Last week, the Delaware attorney general declined to charge Busch for the incident with Driscoll - a move O'Donnell said ''removed a significant impediment'' to reinstatement. ...

Busch has also complied with NASCAR's reinstatement requirements, the terms of which have not been disclosed. O'Donnell said a health care expert recommended Busch's immediate return.

A comment says:

That's all well and good NASCAR BUT you still owe Kurt an apology for suspending him for nothing! Now make it right and let's move on

Another says:

He was evaluated by a health care expert (who advised his immediate return) why? Is his health a question? And she obtained a restraining order against him, when SHE came to his trailer and he has and wants nothing to do with her? I have followed this story since its inception and can see no reason why Busch was suspended in the first place. Yes he's a hot-head and has prior anger problems we all know about, but this thing with Driscoll is nothing more than "he said, she said" bullshite

Zero tolerance for racist chant

CNN reports on our latest national scandal:

Even with the national chapter shutting the Sigma Alpha Epsilon house at the University of Oklahoma, the school president said the university's affiliation with the fraternity is permanently done as a campus group called for the expulsion of fraternity members.

The members have until midnight Tuesday to get their things out of the house, university President David Boren said in a Monday afternoon news conference.

"The house will be closed, and as far as I'm concerned, they won't be back," he said, adding that the university is exploring what actions it can take against individual fraternity members.

A Saturday video showing party-bound fraternity members on a bus chanting a racial epithet found its way anonymously to the school newspaper and a campus organization, which both promptly publicized the nine-second clip.

The students on the bus clap and pump their fists as they boisterously chant, "There will never be a ni**** SAE. You can hang him from a tree, but he can never sign with me."

By Sunday night, SAE's national chapter had suspended the University of Oklahoma members and threatened lifelong suspensions for anyone responsible for the chant, but Boren took it a step further.

Wait a minute. This was a 9-second video clip! I would have said that it is impossible to get the whole country mad at you from a 9-second video.

The punishment is against the whole fraternity, including members who were not involved. And punished for life.

I may get into trouble for saying this, but I do not believe that anyone should be punished for privately expressing their personal opinions about who they want to associate with, regardless of how offensive those opinions might be.

The former LA Clippers owner was forced out of the NBA for private opinions of who his paid mistress should associate with. That was bad enuf, but these are just partying college students who could have been joking, for all we know.

Even if they favor segregation, or slavery, or deporting blacks to Africa, or any other racist opinion, that should be their right. Certain types of discrimination in employment, housing, and a few other areas are illegal, but this action is purely against expressing an opinion.

And maybe not even an opinion. No one has  bothered to ask these boys whether it was really their opinion, or they were just reciting a chant.

I think that if a bunch of white racists in Oklahoma want to have their own little all-white private club, then the blacks and liberals should be happy that those people have separated themselves from the community so that their presence will not bother anyone.

One trouble with this is that I do not what most white people think of blacks. Many express anti-racist views, but are they just saying that to avoid the thought police?

The country Jordan does not truly have free speech:

Earlier this month, Jordan's Information Minister Mohammad Al-Momani told a conference that freedom of expression can contribute to stopping radicalization.

On the very same day, a military court in the capital Amman sentenced a man to 18 months in prison for a Facebook post that was seen as insulting a friendly country, the United Arab Emirates.

Okay, that is Jordan, but I thought that Oklahoma was better than that.

Here is another story of someone being punished before the facts are in:

In a stunning move just two days before the season-opening Daytona 500, NASCAR suspended Kurt Busch indefinitely on Friday after a judge said the former champion almost surely strangled and beat an ex-girlfriend last fall and there was a "substantial likelihood" of more domestic violence from him in the future.

NASCAR said Busch would not be allowed to race or participate in any NASCAR activities until further notice given the "serious nature of the findings and conclusions" made by the Delaware judge. ...

In a 25-page opinion explaining why he issued the no-contact order this week, Family Court Commissioner David Jones concluded that it was more likely than not that Busch abused Patricia Driscoll ...

So his race-car career is over because of some stupid family court commissioner has an opinion about what is "more likely than not", and that there is a "substantial likelihood" that he do something bad in the future?!

As I keep complaining, no one believes in innocence until proven guilty, and people are guilty in family court for what they might do in the future.

Busch has denied the alleged assault, which is the subject of a separate criminal investigation, ...

[Commissioner] Jones noted that [girlfriend] Driscoll presented false testimony that conflicted with that of a chaplain who saw her immediately after the alleged assault and said he didn't see any marks or bruises on her. Jones nevertheless said he didn't believe Driscoll's false testimony amounted to perjury or intentional falsehood. ...

Busch's attorneys filed a motion late Thursday asking Jones to re-open the Family Court hearing so that they can present testimony from three acquaintances of Driscoll who they say were previously reluctant to get involved but have now come forward to contradict statements Driscoll has made about her relationship with Busch.

So he denies the charges, the girlfriend was proved to be a liar, and he has not been criminally charged or convicted of anything.

The judge [ie, the commissioner] concluded that Busch did not appear to be a prototypical batterer who uses violence to subjugate or control, but that the incident instead was most likely a "situational" event in which Busch was unable to cope and to control his tendency to act out violently in response to stress and frustration, causing him to "snap."

At the same time, however, Jones said he believes there's real possibility that Busch will lash out again.

"Given respondent's passion for his racing career and his intemperate and frequently violent reactions to seemingly minor racing setbacks, the court finds that there exists a likelihood of future acts of domestic violence against petitioner in the event that respondent's racing career is damaged or destroyed as the result of his having been found to have committed an act of domestic violence in this case or any subsequent criminal prosecution," Jones wrote.

Jones added that because Busch has a propensity to lose control in response to disappointing or frustrating situations involving racing and that those who love him are likely to be around him at those times "there is a substantial likelihood of acts of domestic violence by respondent against future intimate partners.

So this family court commissioner is psychoanalyzing him based on him being a race-car driver. This speculation is that he might lose a future race, become irritable, and take it out of a future intimate partner!

So not only does this commissioner pre-judge Busch in a way to destroy his racing career, he punishes Busch for how he might react to his racing career being unfairly destroyed!

Family court judges rarely spell out such crazy reasoning, but I wonder how often they do it. That is, a judge takes a dad's kids away, and then is reluctant to give the kids back because the dad is probably angry about his kids being unfairly taken away.

If NASCAR thinks that he lacks the temperament or safe practices to the point where he is a hazard to other drivers or fans, then I could understand suspending him for bad behavior. But a family court commissioner trying to protect some future girlfriend who might be trying to comfort him after a loss? This is crazy. It is like that movie about pre-crime. Or wrecking his racing career based on false testimony from his girlfriend, and then justifying wrecking his career because of how upset he might be at having his career wrecked by false testimony? The world has gone mad. I wonder if anyone in the NASCAR world is defending Busch.

Update: A free speech law professor says that it would be unconstitutional to expel the students, and sticks to that after OU does expel them.

My guess is that Boren has already made a deal with some prosecutor to charge these kids with a hate crime. If they can be coerced to pleading guilty to some misdemeanor, then the university will be vindicated.

Juvenile judge tries to silence a critic

The Geauga County Ohio Republican Party Chairwoman criticized a juvenile court judge in a private email for being "narcissist and mentally ill. Also, that he is a chameleon who takes revenge on people who disagree with him." So what does the judge do when he gets wind of it? He holds her in contempt of court!

The judge defends himself:

“Nancy McArthur improperly interfered with an ongoing (juvenile court matter) by making factually false statements about the competency and legal proficiency of the juvenile court judge … to a known party in that case,” Grendell told the Maple Leaf on Monday.

“Ms. McArthur’s conduct jeopardizes sensitive judicial proceedings that involve protection of a (juvenile),” the judge said.

Grendell said he would not discuss juvenile cases in the media.

“However, the court also will not allow Nancy McArthur or anyone else with a personal political agenda to jeopardize child safety in Geauga County by undermining the credibility and integrity of the juvenile court and the court’s ability to administer justice and protect children in pending … cases,” he added.

There is more info here.

This judge is way way way out of line to try to silence someone's free speech to comment on a public official. He will lose, of coursee.

I post this because the judge would have to have been bullying people for many years in order to get this arrogant, and because he defends himself by claiming to protect children. Whenever I here someone talking about protecting children, it is nearly always a scheme to do the opposite.

Someone once said Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. No, I think that protecting children is the last refuge of a scoundrel.

Alabama judge is right to defy federal judge

I posted yesterday about the same-sex marriage case, and now the US Supreme Court is showing its hand:

The U.S. Supreme Court refused Monday to step in and stop gay marriages from taking place in Alabama. The move sent the strongest signal to date that the justices are on the verge of legalizing gay marriage nationwide. Within hours of the high-court ruling, same-sex marriages began taking place in Alabama, despite an eleventh-hour show of defiance by the state's chief justice. ...

The decision upholding the order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Alabama came just hours after the state's chief justice, Roy Moore — knowing that the nation's highest court was about to rule on the state's request for a stay — issued his own decree ordering state probate judges not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

So it is pretty obvious that the US Supreme Court will force same-sex marriage.

Moore's position is not so ridiculous. I don't know about Alabama law, but here is Here is California law:

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SEC. 3.5. An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:

(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;

(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;

(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations.

So California (and probably Alabama) should be refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses unless and until some appellate court rules that the opposite-sex marriage law is unconstitutional. That has not happened in California or Alabama.

But as I say, the fix is in. The USA does not believe in Rule of Law when it comes to marriage and family law.

The Third World is at the other extreme:

A Malaysian court on Tuesday upheld a sodomy conviction and a five-year prison sentence for Anwar Ibrahim, the leader of the country’s opposition, in the culmination of a protracted legal battle entwined with a high-stakes struggle for political supremacy. ...

This was the second prosecution of Mr. Anwar, 67, on charges of sodomy. He spent six years in prison after a conviction in a separate sodomy trial by a different accuser but was acquitted on appeal in 2004. ...

Mr. Anwar’s defense team portrayed the current case as blatantly political. The accuser testified that two days before the sex allegedly occurred, he met with Mr. Anwar’s political rival, Najib Razak, who was deputy prime minister at the time and who has since become prime minister. It was not made clear in court how a clerk working for the opposition obtained a meeting with Mr. Najib, one of the country’s most powerful men.

Occasionally I get comments saying parents should be arrested for stupidity. If so, Anwar should also be jailed for stupidity because it appears that he was set up, and could not resist the sodomy.

Family court grapples with vaccine dispute

Here is a Michigan case where a judge was asked to resolve a vaccination disagreement:

Following the parties’ divorce, defendant Richard Kagen discovered that plaintiff Lenore Kagen had discontinued their children’s vaccinations several years earlier [long before the divorce]. The pair could not agree on whether the children’s vaccinations should be updated and brought their dispute before the Oakland Circuit Court.

The circuit court failed to describe the applicable burden of proof and made no consideration of any statutory best interest factor in deciding the matter as required by [precedent]. The court also abused its discretion in excluding from evidence government-issued statements about the safety, potential risks, and benefits of childhood vaccinations. We therefore vacate the circuit court’s June 27, 2013 opinion and order rejecting Mr. Kagen’s bid to vaccinate the children and remand for a continued hearing….

Mrs. Kagen asserted that she maintains religious objections to employing vaccinations that contain poisonous ingredients. She further contended that Mr. Kagen previously shared her concerns and joined her decision to forego further inoculations. Mr. Kagen, on the other hand, claimed that he was blindsided by his ex-wife’s religious reformation and was completely unaware of the cessation of vaccinations until five years later.

There are a couple of easy ways to resolve this. One would be to order the parents to follow the CDC recommendations. Another would be to order the parents to stick to what they did when they were married. Judges often do either of these, and claim it is the BIOTCh (best interest of the child).

A sneakier strategy is for the judge to tell the lawyers that if a parent objects to a scheduled vaccination, then he will reconsider whether that parent is deserving of child custody. The lawyer then persuades the parent to back off.

All of these are surely legally wrong. The state could require everyone to get the vaccinations, but no law says that the requirement is only effective on kids of divorced parents. And surely parents should be able to change their minds.

Examples like these are frequently given as showing the necessity of family court intervention when parents do not agree. How else to resolve the dispute, they say.

To me, it shows just the opposite. The US FDA and CDC spend many millions of dollars on data gathering, research, and expert opinions on vaccination. Even they cannot be sure what is best. So how can some judge possibly decide what is best?

He cannot. He will just show his prejudices.

Some will say that the judge is better even if he is arbitrary, because he is objective and neutral. But that is false, and even if it were true, the kid should reared by the parents, not the judge.

In my view, the dispute is completely unnecessary. Just let each parent do what he or she wants on their own time.

This case is about like two Jewish divorced parents fighting over one possibly letting the other eat bacon. Sometimes judges intervene on such cases also, and rule that because the couple agreed at one time to keep kosher, they can ordered to continue that because a consistent parenting policy is in the BIOTCh. But that would mean that no parent could change his mind.

Admittedly, my rule would say that the parents who like vaccination and bacon are going to get their way. Well, I don't think that a parent sharing custody should be able to tell the other parent what to do or not do, unless it is something objectively harmful. Vaccinations and bacon are well-accepted by the vast majority of the population, and are legal and safe.